Those concerned about extreme fires, heat waves, floods, and other signs of a disrupted climate should read Surviving the Anthropocene: A Darwinian Guide, by University of Toronto professor Daniel Brooks and his colleague Salvatore Agosta.
Brooks and Agosta propose a basic law of survival: “Humanity may not harm the biosphere, or by inaction, allow the biosphere to come to harm.” They say we should allow as much of the biosphere as possible to exist as a “functioning evolutionary commons.” They recommend this “third way” between two extreme beliefs – that technology can control the planet and save us, or that humanity has gone rogue and will destroy itself.
If we can’t stop climate change, or even slow it down much, survival requires adapting. Brooks and Agosta suggest changing the narrative from “control and its corollary, sustainability, to evolution and its corollary, survivability.”
Survivability means rejecting “sustainable development” – a tough one for many.
Economists and politicians perpetuate the illusion that growth can solve our economic challenges. Brooks and Agosta say that “unconstrained growth is inevitably pathological and destructive,” calling this an “anti-Darwinian principle” and “the quickest path to extinction.”
They reject the notion of “pristine nature” – conserving “untouched protected areas, away from humans.” They suggest we provide “safe havens for climate refugees by revitalizing small urban centers in recently abandoned rural areas.” Living in big cities walled off from nature, acquiring and defending resources, has “led to a death spiral, creating conflict after conflict with no resolution.”
On the bright side, Brooks and Agosta remind us that nature is not fragile. Life has persisted for four billion years, surviving repeated waves of change. We can manipulate parts of the biosphere, provided we leave intact its ability to evolve and cope with change.
Their “laws of biotics” resemble the provisions of the Dish with One Spoon treaty made by Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island: i) the land provides, but only take what is needed; ii) don’t prevent others from having their needs met; iii) in taking needs, don’t diminish the capacity of Mother Earth to reproduce.
But what about the damage we’ve already done? In a 2018 paper, “Predicting and assessing progress in the restoration of ecosystems,” UBC professor Anthony Sinclair argues for “monitoring of progress toward goals, set by human values and policies, to determine their resilience and persistence.”
But what is “progress toward goals”? Given unpredictable extreme weather events, efforts to “control nature” and achieve fixed restoration goals seem unlikely to succeed. Agosta and Brooks argue that from an evolutionary perspective, “progress” only means survival, and that management practices based on “optimal design and control” are making things worse.
Restoration goals do not require a fixed endpoint. Consider the debate among ecologists between “active” and “passive” restoration. A 2014 paper observed:
Passive restoration areas often appear “messier” than active restoration, resulting in thickets of impenetrable vegetation made up of shrubs, vines, and grasses, rather than systematically planted vegetation. To the untrained eye this may look like abandoned land, as people typically consider restoration to have a strong proactive component that is neat and orderly… it may not be intuitive to local human communities that weedy-looking sites undergoing natural regeneration are not failed or abandoned projects…
A reply paper noted that passive restoration is not only less expensive, it often creates habitats with higher biodiversity than closed forests (think butterflies).
The 2021 global biodiversity summit in Montreal issued 23 targets. Sixty-five of Canada’s most eminent biodiversity experts have written a paper just released by Environment and Climate Change Canada, discussing the science and knowledge needed to achieve the targets. One is that 30 per cent of degraded lands are under effective restoration by 2030. They recommend “comparisons of direct intervention (e.g., tree planting) versus passive restoration.”
Here are some ideas for restoring degraded areas. Thirty per cent of Canadians could replace the grass on their lawns with native trees and shrubs – and then let nature take her course. Use of herbicides could cease on 30 per cent of the farms and on all of the forests where this practice is currently employed (another target calls for a 50 per cent reduction in pesticide use). Windbreaks and stream buffers can be created in 30 per cent of the intensively farmed areas where they are absent, reducing erosion and flooding, and improving water quality. Many small dams built decades ago no longer serve a useful purpose – 30 per cent of them can be removed. Thirty per cent of orphan oil and gas well sites not repurposed for renewable energy can be restored. And so forth.
As we ponder the legacies of colonialism, and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, let’s also consider reconciliation with nature. Attempts to colonize and enslave Mother Earth must cease. Let her reproduce and evolve, free her, give her rights. This is essential for climate adaptation.
Support rabble today!
We’re so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.
rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Become a rabble rouser — donate to rabble.ca today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
